Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Another item in the long list of things I just don't understand

Raw Milk. OK, I can understand the general concept of the "eating raw" movement...sure, vegetables and fruits and whatnot have more nutritional value if you don't cook 'em. Sure, meat is cruel and leads to clogged arteries and a big ass. But raw milk? Does the pasteurization process really take that much out of the product? I mean, you can get whole pasteurized milk that's chock full of milk fat and all that goodness, it's just had the bacteria cooked out of it. Or is that the problem, that the pasteurization process kills both good and bad bacteria, and the benefit of the good outweighs the risk of the bad?

Can you tell I haven't actually researched this one? I know, it's easy to miss.

Anyhow, what brings this to mind is this story from the AP, via the Seattle Times:

Five sickened by raw milk from Ferndale dairyBy The Associated Press

FERNDALE — Health officials say five people were sickened by bacteria from a batch of raw milk that was recalled by a dairy in Ferndale.

According to the Whatcom County Health Department, four were from Whatcom County and three were from neighboring Skagit County.

All tested positive for the same strain of campylobacter jejuni that was found last month in unpasteurized milk from Pleasant Valley Dairy. That batch was pulled from the shelves, and the dairy has resumed distribution of raw milk as far south as Seattle.

Health officials also say the dairy has changed its testing procedure to reduce the risk of releasing contaminated milk.

Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of diarrhea in the United States.